>>63533>Present actual court cases/evidence to support your argument that loli is by default obscene and illegal.this isnt the argument being made, you fucking esl retard. you keep playing coy like you really expect me to believe there is simply just cutesy fan art of innocent little cartoon children. this would be the bailey portion of your argument in which you heroically and intelligently defeat the strawman that drawing cartoon children is inherently illegal in itself. the actual argument is that depictions of minors engaging in sexual acts is illegal as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 1466A.
curiously, you have still failed to exonerate the explicit content specifically hosted on this website, merely offering a vague claim that it clears all parts of miller, and then proceed to screech that i must provide you with hard evidence in defense of the aforementioned strawman that you've constructed. how pathetic! if you are so incapable or unwilling to go through the fap thread (note: it's specifically called the fap thread, not the "fine art appreciation and analysis of human anatomy" thread) on lounge and explain to me how you think none of those pictures are violations of miller or 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, then you cannot expect me to invest a ludicrous amount of effort more.
but! i will provide you with a couple cases where 18 U.S.C. § 1466A is enforced:
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-eychaner-889080777https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/564/996/1407869/as a last note, it's pretty funny that you keep bringing up what "actual professional lawyers" say as if they are some uniform priesthood LOL! the majority of lawyers that i can find that would say it is legal are only saying such is true within the state of california. federal law clearly disagrees, as illustrated multiple times to you already, which you disregard because your widdle feelsies. i look forward to more of your disingenuous responses, thinking it convinces anyone except yourself, your fellow pedophiles and literal retards.